Have looked up the definition of socialism, but still am not clear on it's meaning or effect on U.S affair, or future affairs. Can someone help a brother out?
The "socialism" talked about in modern Western countries is actually closer to "social democracy," which is a system of government that still allows the market to determine the allocation of resources, but has strong government oversight to correct "undesirable" outcomes of natural market mechanics and supports a strong safety net so that the neediest citizens of a state don't go unprotected.
"Socialism" in its historical context is more radical than that, as it was the idea that there should be a central body that controls the means of production, and that ALL wealth inequality (not just excessive inequality) should be eliminated. It was seen as the first step towards communism; a point in social history where the state was still necessary but the profit motivation and exploitation of the working classes were eliminated.
>>774876
Thank you!
>>774876
Socialism and communism were used interchangeably in the 19th century, a different word for a different context. Anarchists are socialists too but they obviously don't advocate for a state. Upper-phase communism as described by Marx is just anarchy.
>>774844
Soon, soon my hour strike, and humans will be kick out from all economic models!
>>774844
In the simplest possible terms.
It's the "collective ownership of the means of production."
Means of production are the *physical assets* (factories, land, mines, shipping yards, docks, assembly plants, etc) that produce *commodities* (things like clothes, instant Ramen, shoes, hats, etc).
Collective ownership means the society as a whole owns these means of production, rather than a few private wealthy individuals.
>>774889
Pls no
>>774844
The Real Question is why the fuck do Americans believe that the Welfare state is socialism?
>>774935
>Cold War era Red Scare propaganda
>influence of churches and Christianity ("godless Communism")
>mass media regurgitating the same shit
>America has always been a religiously conservative and traditionalist country
'Socialist' and 'liberal' are insults and slurs in the American political landscape.
>>774935
Years of cold war propaganda made "socialism" a convenient boogeyman
>>774844
I have a similar question: what is the difference between communism, and marxism? Are they literally the same thing?
>>774943
>Liberal is an insult and a slur
This never ceases to amaze me, especially from a country that prides on freedom and it's constitution, two major points of liberalism.
>>774959
Communism just means a system where all property is held in common by everyone. Marxism is a type of communism involving many specific doctrines propagated by Karl Marx.
>>774988
But I thought Communism included all the ideas of Karl Marx as stated in the Communist Manifesto?
>>775064
That's Marxism. Even Marx himself talks about "primitive communism" that existed long before his manifesto. Since Marxism is by far the most popular type of communism in the modern world, though, people often say "Communism" when they specifically mean "Marxism".
>>775064
Technically, that is Marxism, but as he and Engels developed the idea of communism/socialism, the Manifesto is communism as well. Maoism and Stalinism are also different interpretations of communism, but they have the same basis.
>>774988
>Communism just means a system where all property is held in common by everyone.
There is two type of communism.
1st. Less circumscribed an utopia model of society not used money system.
2st. All wares owned by 3 levels.
1st. All wares own by goverment/state except private things (things,clothes,cars,villas with limited not-industry size). For high chiefs there are villas owned by goverment for temporary use for chiefs, for saving their money from building their own temporary villas, temporary because all humans mortal, and offspring of chiefs do not deserve respect and property temporary owned by chiefs.
All the bowels of the earth owned by goverment, and profits from this share inside of country, for different purposes, medical, army, education, etc.
2st. Parts of all, owned by firms, owned by goverment. Difference between director wage and worker wage not bigger than x5. All workers gain part of mountly firm profit. Between workers is scale of professionalism linked with wage.
Communism difficult to realize because humans very egoistic, and humans like to collect wares even they did not have lifetime for use all collected things, humans as jackdaws, animal grabbing instinct strong.
In another words, in capitalistic world, all people work for family wealth, in communistic world there is more highest idea, work for biggest part of society or nation.
In 1900 year and capitalist system worker can get part of monthly profit of firm having share. But now, in 2016 because chiefs of firm can print additional shares as toilet paper, usual worker usually can't get part of monthly profit, capitalist simply rob him. Also capitalist now only sale share to worker, but not give him share for 5 years of work, for example.
>>775076
Am I correct in thinking that Stalinism is a more authoritarian version of Marxism? Also if you could explain what Maoism is then that would be amazing.
>>775076
So what is the one thing that makes all these ideaologies fall under the umbrealla term "communism." Is it soeley the idea of the workers controlling the means of production or are other things like the anti-religouis sentiment and idea of a "violent revolution" consistent throughout?
>>775083
Stalin virtually perfected authoritarianism, and is considered to be the most successful authoritarian of recent centuries if not all time. Marxism, seeing as how it hasn't really been put into practice, is harder to judge. The Manifesto doesn't define any sort of hierarchical structure or rule, so theoretically, it could be applied to a representative form of government just as easily as a hereditary or coup sort of succession of power. Regardless, it is still very authoritarian. On the topic of Maoism, I'm sorry to say that I haven't studied it as much (I'm a broke son of a bitch, and haven't obtained a copy of his Little Red Book yet), so I probably know as much as you do. The only thing I can say definitively is that he worked to appeal to the peasant class more so than other communist rulers.
>>775115
>So what is the one thing that makes all these ideaologies fall under the umbrealla term "communism."
That's answered pretty succinctly up there >>774988
At its most basic it's the idea of holding property in common instead of individually. Usually this is coupled with an idea of a classless society. Anti-religion is not necessarily a part of it (there is such a thing as Christian communism) and neither is violent revolution.
>>775115
My interpretation is that it lies with to government control of the means of production, and Marx's 10 points were generally adhered, to on paper if not in practice.
>>775131
adhered to,
not adhered, to
>>775083
Stalinism changed Marx's ideas of a worldwide revolution to revolution in a single country instead. He also added most of the authoritarian apparatus, though Lenin had a significant role there too.
Maoism was different from Marxism because, while Marx had predicted that communism could only arise through a revolution of the urban workers, Mao instead tried to skip over the stage of urbanized capitalism and jump straight from an agricultural society into communism. This failed horribly when 30 million people starved to death.
>>775131
This is not accurate at all. Marx himself thought the state/government should entirely wither away in communism.
>>774943
Liberal as insult is highly dependent on where you are from in the northeast it is certainly not a dirty word in fact many people wear it with pride
>>775143
He did, however, the effect is that everyone becomes a part of the state, therefore the state still exists. And human nature dictates that someone will assume the reigns of power eventually. I may have interpreted the manifesto wrong, but it seemed to me that in his idea, everyone is the state.
>>775155
Marx considered that the role of a state was to enforce preexisting socioeconomic relations, and since the final classless communist society he called for would have no classes and no socieconomic hierarchy, it would therefore also require no state to enforce anything. It's not that everyone is the state, it's that the concept of a state becomes needless and vanishes.
>>774876
You confused market socialism with social democracy.
Also, not all socialist economies are centrally controlled and socialism does't eliminate wealth inequality and profit motivation.
>>775319
>wealth inequality
this one should is. Doctor should get more wealth than yard cleaner. But inequality should has limits, because if not, resentful humans do revolutions and/or crime.
But moneybags rarely care about opinion of citizens like that.
